Uploaded by Victor Salas

Copy of Rhetorical Terms - Argumentation

Rhetorical Terms - Argumentation
1. Rogerian Argument pg 530
you enter into a cooperative relationship with opponents. Instead of aggressively refuting
opposing arguments, you emphasize points of agreement and try to find common ground
2. Deductive reasoning pg 530
proceeds from a general premise or assumption to a specific conclusion. Deduction is what
most people mean when they speak of logic. Using strict logical form, deduction holds that if all
the statements in the argument are true, the conclusion must also be true.
3. Inductive reasoning pg 530
Induction proceeds from individual observations to a more general conclusion and uses no strict
form. It requires only that all the relevant evidence be stated and that the conclusion fit the
evidence better than any other conclusion would.
4. Conclusion pg 530
The group of sentences or paragraphs that brings an essay to a close. To conclude means not
only “to end” but also “to resolve.” Although a conclusion does not review all the issues
discussed in an essay, the conclusion is the place to show that those issues have been
5. Toulmin logic pg 533
A method of structuring an argument according to the way arguments occur in everyday life.
Developed by philosopher Stephen Toulmin, Toulmin logic divides an argument into three parts:
the claim, the grounds, and the warrant.
6. Claim pg 534
the main point of the essay. Usually the claim is stated directly as the thesis, but in some
arguments it may be implied.
7. Grounds pg 534
the material a writer uses to support the claim — can be evidence (facts or expert opinion) or
appeals to the emotions or values of the audience.
8. Warrant pg 535
In Toulmin logic, the inference that connects the claim to the grounds. The warrant can be a
belief that is taken for granted or an assumption that underlies the argument.
9. Fallacies pg 535
Illogical statements that may sound reasonable or true but are actually deceptive and dishonest.
When readers detect them, such statements can turn even a sympathetic audience against your
10. Begging the question pg 535
This fallacy assumes that a statement is true when it actually requires proof. It requires readers
to agree that certain points are self-evident when in fact they are not.
11. Analogy pg 535
Explains something unfamiliar by comparing it to something familiar. Although analogies can
help explain abstract or unclear ideas, they do not constitute proof. An argument based on an
analogy frequently ignores important dissimilarities between the two things being compared.
When this occurs, the argument is fallacious
12. Ad Hominem (personal attack pg 535)
This fallacy tries to divert attention from the facts of an argument by attacking the motives or
character of the person making the argument.
13. Jumping to conclusion pg 536
Sometimes called a hasty or sweeping generalization, this fallacy occurs when a conclusion is
reached on the basis of too little evidence.
14. False Dilemma pg 536
This fallacy occurs when a writer suggests that only two alternatives exist even though there
may be others.
15. Equivocation pg 536
This fallacy occurs when the meaning of a key term changes at some point in an argument.
Equivocation makes it seem as if a conclusion follows from premises when it actually does not.
16. Tu Quoque - You also pg 536
This fallacy asserts that an opponent’s argument has no value because the opponent does not
follow his or her own advice.
17. Red Herring pg 536
This fallacy occurs when the focus of an argument is shifted to divert the audience from the
actual issue.
18. Appeal to doubtful authority pg 536
Often people will attempt to strengthen an argument with references to experts or famous
people. These appeals have merit when the person referred to is an expert in the area being
discussed. They do not have merit, however, when the individuals cited have no expertise on
the issue.
19. Misleading Statistic pg 537
Although statistics are a powerful form of factual evidence, they can be misrepresented or
distorted in an attempt to influence an audience.
20. Post Hoc (after this) reasoning pg 537
This fallacy, known as post hoc reasoning, assumes that because two events occur close
together in time, the first must be the cause of the second.
21. Non sequitur (it does not follow) pg 537
This fallacy occurs when a statement does not logically follow from a previous statement.